Halifax / Wonga repayments

meer53

q3estion-mark wrote: »

Me to but my area is internal investment policy & control. I don't work in front line AVU style departments but naturally I understand the business model and risk bands. You say all fraud cases are investigated. No they are not. An example, I ring to report my card lost. A day later a payday loan tries to take money.

That's not fraud so would never be flagged. However you're referring to this example as being fraudulent so my response is in context.

If I complained that I paid in £100 over the counter but only £80 was credited to my account. That is not fraud either and would be dealt with initially at branch level.

My point here is that once you establish fraud it's not usually small. You guys confuse a national hunter marker with money laundering. One will get you a decline letter the other could result in a police visit.

Worlds apart.

I have never said that stopping a card to prevent CPA's debiting would be classed as fraud. you're confusing me with another poster.

DevCoder

roh999 wrote: »

lol they even thanking each others post now,they ll be in the pub together tomorrow comparing notes.

Probably because we are both in similar roles which are not tea-makers and thus although we might not agree on each others approach do agree on what the AML/Fraud requirements or threshold are in a financial institution.

Want to answer the two questions stated?

roh999

krisdorey wrote: »

And lets keep it to the case in question.

you do realise this is a forum and not a court case?

roh999

krisdorey wrote: »

Probably because we are both in similar roles which are not tea-makers and thus although we might not agree on each others approach do agree on what the AML/Fraud requirements or threshold are in a financial institution.

Want to answer the two questions stated?

yes your both up your own !!!!. just a simple answer would have done instead of the crap you 2 have come out with on several thread.

DevCoder

roh999 wrote: »

yes your both up your own !!!!.

And with that repost Ill take it you dont know the answer.

roh999

krisdorey wrote: »

And with that repost Ill take it you dont know the answer.

if i knew the answer i would have posted it simple and short,you and your friend seem to be in competion who can do it the best,have u even started shaving yet?

DevCoder

roh999 wrote: »

you do realise this is a forum and not a court case?

Its a question which needs to have constraints else we could bring in examples of money laundering for drug cartels, or deliberate fraud by financial institutions to cover up loses.

I'm merely narrowing it down to something which is not black or white, you seem to want to resort to insults.

roh999

q3estion-mark wrote: »

Lol (gonna thank you too).

Beer tomorrow or shall we do pimms?

your really mean it though( the pimms)

DevCoder

roh999 wrote: »

if i knew the answer i would have posted it simple and short,you and your friend seem to be in competion who can do it the best,have u even started shaving yet?

Insults are for the weak.

Yes thanks, been in the industry for 20 years now, so I guess I must have started shaving at some point.

Strange that although I disagree with my "friends" approach to this thread and probably still do question him/her somewhat that I also find he/she states the most sense when talking about fraud thresholds on an institutional level.

meer53

q3estion-mark wrote: »

I did state earlier that let's assume the customer upon reporting it lost had no intention of using the card. Obviously you picked up the point in your last post, option 2!

So back to the context of the thread. No fraud was committed nor attempted.

Pipe down, how did the thread become a discussion about AML and fraud ?

If you two would like to have a debate between yourselves, carry on, while the rest of us get on with our lives.